Hi Andres,
While there can be other ways, in general term vectors are used to extract
"important terms" from top-k documents returned by the initial query.
Please see getTopTerms() method in
http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/news/advancedluceneeu_69.pdf
Ahmet
On Tuesday, June 28, 20
Hello
I want to implement rocchio with lucene. Somebody has idea how to do it?
Thanks.
--
Atentamente,
*Andrés Fernando Wilches Riaño*
Ingeniero de Sistemas y Computación
Estudiante de Maestría en Ingeniería de Sistemas y Computación
Asistente Docente
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Hi Yannick,
More like this (mlt) stuff does this already.
It extracts "interesting terms" from top N documents.
Don't remember but this feature may require "term vectors" to be stored.
Ahmet
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:41 AM, Yannick Martel
wrote:
Le Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:56:05 +0100,
Ya
Le Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:56:05 +0100,
Yannick Martel a écrit :
> Hi !
>
> I am using (Java) Lucene for data indexation, and I want to produce
> kind of tags cloud for specific data.
>
> I've found HighFreqTerms to get a top list of terms from *all
> documents* (if I have well understood) (by the
Hi !
I am using (Java) Lucene for data indexation, and I want to produce kind
of tags cloud for specific data.
I've found HighFreqTerms to get a top list of terms from *all
documents* (if I have well understood) (by the bye, I had override it to
be able to filter on several fields instead only on
Hi !
I am using (Java) Lucene for data indexation, and I want to produce kind
of tags cloud for specific data.
I've found HighFreqTerms to get a top list of terms from *all
documents* (if I have well understood) (by the bye, I had override it to
be able to filter on several fields instead only on
Hi,
I wanted to implement "most relevant search" in Lucene for my project. I am
currently using the Lucene provided by Hybris 5.3 i.e. Lucene 4.6.1. The
scenario is that I have type ahead functionality (autosuggest) implemented
already in the project so when user starts typing in the input box,
o includes proper ranking
during the merge. I would have normally assumed that, but given the
discussions we are having here, I am doubting that the merged results are
actually merged in any reasonable way as to provided relevance merging and
relationships as well.
I hope I am wron
Hi,
Does someone know if the source of the jira issues search example is available:
http://jirasearch.mikemccandless.com/
thanks,
vince
DISCLAIMER
This message is intended only for use by the person to
whom it is addressed. It may contain informa
for almost three years. However, probably the simple
workarounds suggested above might do the job.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-properly-correlate-relevance-in-a-search-across-multiple-collections-tp4157240p4157555.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Us
, September 08, 2014 10:31 AM
To: java-user
Subject: Re: How to properly correlate relevance in a search across multiple
collections
I think the point got lost in the discussion. Raw scores are simply _not_
comparable from different collections. They aren't even comparable for
different queri
java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to properly correlate relevance in a search across multiple
collections
An observation: df and IDF (document frequency) is a key driver of the whole
relevancy framework on which stock Lucene is based. There is no question about
its significant value. But... that mea
n using the raw
> score from each separate collection to order and then after a merge come up
> with relevancy?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: atawfik [mailto:contact.txl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 9:50 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>
-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to properly correlate relevance in a search across multiple
collections
Hi,
if you have documents that might exist in multiple collections, then you can
use techniques from meta search. That is combining multiple search results from
different collections
documents
by using some aggregation methods. It is known that using the sum of
relevance scores produces good results.
If there are no shared documents between collections, you still can use the
same approach but using different aggregation methods. One method is round
robin. You start by selecting
,
but it can include other factors, but simply limited to the contents of the
document itself) to sidestep these corpus-dependent scores. In other words,
the score of the document could depend on only the contents of the document
itself, not the corpus. Yes, that's a major loss of relevanc
I have a project where there are multiple collections - could be dozens at
times that a single results set needs to be generated by applying the same
search criteria to each collection directory and then correlating all the sub
searches into a single result set with correlating relevance.
Does
measurements showed quite significant change in MAP values,
I would have expected there to be no change if relevance scores were
calculated based on filtered document count, instead of system wide term
stats. See results here : http://goo.gl/BI4fv
Of course, this bug/feature leads to some
The very definition of a "filter" in Lucene is that it doesn't influence
relevance/scoring in any way, so your question is a contradiction in terms.
If you are finding that the use of a filter is affecting the scores of
documents, then that is clearly a bug.
-- Jack Krupansky
Hi,
I would like to know if it is possible to calculate the relevance ranks of
documents based on filtered document count?
The current filter implementations as far as I know, seems to be applied
after the query is processed and ranked against the full set of documents.
Since system wide IDF
Dear All,
I was wondering if the Open Relevance Project(ORP) is currently active and
available for users.
I just installed Lucene and was hoping to use the ORP to do some relevance
testing and work with their dataset.
When I search on google I see that the ORP website and wiki have not been
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:51 +0200, Clint Gilbert wrote:
> We're also considering a home-grown scheme involving normalizing the
> denominators of all the index components in all our indices, based on
> the sums of counts obtained from all the indices. This feels like
> re-inventing the wheel, and i
My gut feel is there isn't really a good solution to intermingling the
results, since
they come from different sources, index different kinds of data etc.
The irreducible
problem is that a hit in one index is not comparable to a hit in
another, either from
a Lucene scoring perspective or from the u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you very much for your reply. Yeah, our indexes (indices?)
contain different types and amounts of data. :( The data being indexed
is all the same format - RDF - but it describes different numbers and
kinds of things.
What is your gut feeling on
As you've found out, raw scores certainly aren't comparable across
different indexes
#unless# the documents are fairly distributed. You're talking large
indexes here,
so if the documents are balanced across all your indexes, the results should be
pretty comparable. This pre-supposes that the indexe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I searched the list archives, but couldn't find a question that closely
matches mine.
The project I'm working on is designed to allow searching a distributed
collection of data repositories. Currently, we index each repository to
build
a-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 11:59:11 PM
> Subject: How do I sort lucene search results by relevance and time?
>
> What do I want to do is just like Google search results. The results in the
> first page is the most relevant and also recent documents, but not
&
ne default score and time desc. The sorting
results seem good. It meet my requirement.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
> Well, you can use one of the sorting search methods and pass multiple
> sort keys including relevance and a timestamp. But I suspect the
> Googl
Well, you can use one of the sorting search methods and pass multiple
sort keys including relevance and a timestamp. But I suspect the
Google algorithm may be a bit more complex than that.
One technique is boosting: set an index time document boost on recent
documents. Of course what is recent
What do I want to do is just like Google search results. The results in the
first page is the most relevant and also recent documents, but not
absolutely sorted by time desc.
--
cheers,
Johnbin Wang
:14 PM
Subject: Re: customizable relevance engine
Both Solr or Lucene allow extensive customization of relevance
calculations. Examples include boosting matched in title field vs.
Body, or boosting recent documents more than older documents.
On 8/3/10, d' Ani wrote:
> Hi all,
> I
Both Solr or Lucene allow extensive customization of relevance
calculations. Examples include boosting matched in title field vs.
Body, or boosting recent documents more than older documents.
On 8/3/10, d' Ani wrote:
> Hi all,
> Is there any relevance engine that is built in lucenc
Hi all,
Is there any relevance engine that is built in lucence and which can
be customized.
Regards,
Anirban De
Yahoo: anirbande
Skype: anirbande
Gtalk : ade.sxc
cene's scaling performance and
> relevance tuning
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 2:16 PM
> are there such events in Russia?
>
> Best Regards
> Alexander Aristov
>
>
> On 20 July 2010 17:59, Ivan Provalov
> wrote:
>
&
are there such events in Russia?
Best Regards
Alexander Aristov
On 20 July 2010 17:59, Ivan Provalov wrote:
> We are organizing a meetup in michigan on IR. The first meeting is on
> august 19. We will be talking about lucene's scalability and relevance
> tuning followed b
We are organizing a meetup in michigan on IR. The first meeting is on august
19. We will be talking about lucene's scalability and relevance tuning
followed by a discussion. Feel free to sign up:
http://www.meetup.com/Michigan-Information-Retrieval-Enthusiasts-Group
Thanks,
Ivan pro
esults for the search.
My problem is : the two results have the same relevance.
I thought that the document containing "Wallis" would have better
relevance because I search for the word "wallis" and not "wall".
Relevance is calculated from the searched word (wall
yzer and becomes
"wall". So the two documents are results for the search.
My problem is : the two results have the same relevance.
I thought that the document containing "Wallis" would have better
relevance because I search for the word "wallis" and not "wall".
anybody can help ?
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi Otis and thank your for helping me out.
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
>
>
> Although a Phrase query or TermQuery would be perfectly suited in some
> cases, this will not work in my case.
>
> Basically my application's searc
Hi Otis and thank your for helping me out.
Sorry for the late reply.
Although a Phrase query or TermQuery would be perfectly suited in some
cases, this will not work in my case.
Basically my application's search feature is a single field "à la Google"
and the user can be looking for a lot of
> Subject: Filtering query results based on relevance/acuracy
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm, a total newbie with lucene and trying to understand how to achieve my
> (complicated) goals. So what I'm doing is yet totally experimental for me
> but is probably extremely trivial for the e
Hi,
I'm, a total newbie with lucene and trying to understand how to achieve my
(complicated) goals. So what I'm doing is yet totally experimental for me
but is probably extremely trivial for the experts in this list :)
I use lucene and Hibernate Search to index locations by their name, type,
etc
pared to a vanilla
search.
-Original Message-
From: kenny kim
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: relevance function for scores
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:18:39 +0900
I seems to be a good solution.
However, I think it may takes some processing t
-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: relevance function for scores
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:18:39 +0900
I seems to be a good solution.
However, I think it may takes some processing time to get the
distribution of all matching documents before scoring each docs.
Would you h
-
From: Babak Farhang
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: relevance function for scores
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:11:32 -0600
Woops. Got that backwards.. should read
if (score[n] / score[n-1]) < c / (boost_factor)
On Mon, May 25, 2009 a
-
From: Babak Farhang
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: relevance function for scores
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:11:32 -0600
Woops. Got that backwards.. should read
> if (score[n] / score[n-1]) < c / (boost_factor)
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4
'document collector/result
filter'
that uses relative score information to filter out documents where any
score is less than some magnitude of the best score, but I'm sure this
could be more elegantly generalised into some mathematical
"relevance/significance" model/function
It is an easy thing to write a basic 'document collector/result filter'
>> that uses relative score information to filter out documents where any
>> score is less than some magnitude of the best score, but I'm sure this
>> could be more elegantly generalised into
ic 'document collector/result filter'
> that uses relative score information to filter out documents where any
> score is less than some magnitude of the best score, but I'm sure this
> could be more elegantly generalised into some mathematical
> "relevance/significance&
It's not really a Lucene code question, as such, but it's certainly
something that Lucene users may have implemented before... I'm hoping ;)
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: relevan
>
> J
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Erickson
> Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: relevance function for scores
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:13:27 -0400
>
> Have you looked at TopDocCollector? Basically,
solve this - since ideally I'd like a cutoff point optimised to the
resultant score values.
J
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: relevance function for scores
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:13:27 -0400
Hav
relevant documents.
>
>
> It is an easy thing to write a basic 'document collector/result filter'
> that uses relative score information to filter out documents where any
> score is less than some magnitude of the best score, but I'm sure this
> could be more elegantly
y thing to write a basic 'document collector/result filter'
that uses relative score information to filter out documents where any
score is less than some magnitude of the best score, but I'm sure this
could be more elegantly generalised into some mathematical
"relevance/signi
p may be inappropriate and I
>> want to apologize for that.
>>
>
> I wouldn't say it's inappropriate, but I don't know if anyone here could
> say with certainty b/c the last time I checked GSA was not an open
> platform...
>
>
>>
>> My question is, w
e I checked GSA was not an
open platform...
My question is, what is the relevance ranking algorithm which is
used in
Google Search Appliance (GSA) because the search
is predominantly on documents rather than web pages.
AFAIK, they use a Vector Space Model much as Lucene does, but you&
Hi,
The question that I am posting in this group may be inappropriate and I
want to apologize for that.
My question is, what is the relevance ranking algorithm which is used in
Google Search Appliance (GSA) because the search
is predominantly on documents rather than web pages.
I
> It's the similarity scoring formula. EG see here:
>
>http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/scoring.html
>
> and here:
>
>
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/api/core/org/apache/lucene
> /search/Similarity.html
OK; thank you
-
It's the similarity scoring formula. EG see here:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/scoring.html
and here:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/api/core/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html
Mike
wrote:
I think for "ordinary" Lucene queries, "score"
> I think for "ordinary" Lucene queries, "score" and "relevance" mean
> the same thing.
>
> But if you do eg function queries, or you "mixin" recency into your
> scoring, etc., then "score" could be anything you computed,
I think for "ordinary" Lucene queries, "score" and "relevance" mean
the same thing.
But if you do eg function queries, or you "mixin" recency into your
scoring, etc., then "score" could be anything you computed, a value
from a field,
Hi,
When I say: sorted by relevance or sorted by score -
are relevance and score synonym for each other or what is the difference in
relation to sorting?
Thank you
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr
SortField.FIELD_SCORE lets you sort by relevance.
So then make a Sort that contains an array of two SortFields, eg:
new Sort(new SortField[] {SortField.FIELD_SCORE, new
SortField(myField)})
and pass that when searching. Lucene will then sort first by score,
and when there are ties
Hi all,
Lucene sorts by decreasing relevance by default.
The SortField class is used for sorting by lucene field(s).
First I must sort by relevance, then (for the results which have the
same relevance) I must sort by a lucene field (title for example).
I don't know how to do that. So
Hello,
thanks for your detailed response. I didn't know there was a method called
setBoost for adjusting the relevance of a certain document.
Now I simply calculate the boosting factor for the document, based on its
newness, the sales rank and some other values.
Thank you very much.
ssage
> From: Anshum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:32:56 AM
> Subject: Re: boosting relevance of certain documents
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Just a suggestion, how bout storing an extra field while indexing that
lization is often less than optimal
> for certain types of documents (see the IBM Haifa's assessment for the
> "Million Query" track of TREC on the Lucene Wiki).
>
> Cheers,
> Grant
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Daniel Freudenberger wrote:
>
> Thanks for
Wiki).
Cheers,
Grant
On Apr 25, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Daniel Freudenberger wrote:
Thanks for your response. I already knew that the relevance is based
on the
term frequency but in some cases it's just not what the user expects.
As I already mentioned, "fifa 2003 fifa 03" vs. "f
Thanks for your response. I already knew that the relevance is based on the
term frequency but in some cases it's just not what the user expects.
As I already mentioned, "fifa 2003 fifa 03" vs. "fifa 08" is such a case -
searching for "fifa" would return the &qu
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:59 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: boosting relevance of certain documents
>
> How are you analyzing the searchable field?
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Daniel Freudenberger <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I'm using the StandardAnalyzer - hope this answers your question (I'm quite
new to the lucene thing)
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Ariel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:59 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: boosting relevance
ifa 08") would be the much more relevant result (from the
> user side of view). the same problem arises when searching for
> "playstation"
> - the customer expects products having "playstation" in their names at
> first, ideally the console itself. in reality howe
le itself. in reality however, he gets all possible
products which are in the "playstation" category as well.
my idea was to introduce another attribute relevance, which may increase the
relevance of an entry. the actual relevance shouldn't be suppressed
completely though, b
luceneuser skrev:
Hi All,
I need help on retrieving results based on relevance + freshness. As of
now, i get based on either of the fields, either on relevance or freshness.
how can i achieve this. Lucene retrieves results on relevance but also
fetches old results too. i need more relevant
Have a look at the FunctionQuery capabilities in Lucene in
org.apache.lucene.search.function
You can use this to have field values factor into the score.
-Grant
On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:43 AM, luceneuser wrote:
Hi All,
I need help on retrieving results based on relevance + freshness. As
luceneuser a écrit :
Hi All,
I need help on retrieving results based on relevance + freshness. As of
now, i get based on either of the fields, either on relevance or freshness.
how can i achieve this. Lucene retrieves results on relevance but also
fetches old results too. i need more
Hi All,
I need help on retrieving results based on relevance + freshness. As of
now, i get based on either of the fields, either on relevance or freshness.
how can i achieve this. Lucene retrieves results on relevance but also
fetches old results too. i need more relevant results with
On 5/30/07, Daniel Einspanjer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I quickly found I could do without though was the HTTP overhead.
I implemented the EmbeddedSolr class found on the Solr wiki that let
me interact with the Solr engine directly. This is important since I'm
doing thousands of queries in
On 4/11/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Not really. The explain scores aren't normalized and I also couldn't
: find a way to get the explain data as anything other than a whitespace
: formatted text blob from Solr. Keep in mind that they need confidence
the defualt way Solr du
r}"~2^10 director_name_mv:${Director}^5
director_name_mv:${Director}~.7
For each item in the source feed, the variables are interpolated (the query
term is transformed into a grouped term if there are multiple values for a
variable). That query is then made to find the overall best match.
I
: Not really. The explain scores aren't normalized and I also couldn't
: find a way to get the explain data as anything other than a whitespace
: formatted text blob from Solr. Keep in mind that they need confidence
the defualt way Solr dumps score explainations is just as plain text, but
the Ex
Oh geeze. Gmail ripped my pretty table to shreds. Let me try again:
A
-- id title
title score director director score year year
score overall score
B
-
Not really. The explain scores aren't normalized and I also couldn't
find a way to get the explain data as anything other than a whitespace
formatted text blob from Solr. Keep in mind that they need confidence
factors from one query to the next. With the explain scores, they can
have wildly dif
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:03 PM, Daniel Einspanjer wrote:
The people reviewing this matching process need some way of
determining why a particular match was made other than the overall
score. Was it because the title was a perfect match or was it because
the title wasn't that close, but the direct
eas.
Thank you very much for your time,
Daniel
-- Forwarded message --
From: Daniel Einspanjer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Apr 10, 2007 8:04 AM
Subject: Ideas for a relevance score that could be considered stable
across multiple searches with the same query structure?
To: solr-
scorers are
non-final classes.
Because my interest lies with changes in scoring strategy which is based on
Relevance Feedback?
One observation :
Lucene is designed with inflexible scoring mechanism based on TF-IDF.
It would be really nice if much simpler scoring mechanisms should have given
chance
scorers are
non-final classes.
Because my interest lies with changes in scoring strategy which is based on
Relevance Feedback?
One observation :
Lucene is designed with inflexible scoring mechanism based on TF-IDF.
It would be really nice if much simpler scoring mechanisms should have given
chance
: package. By implementing new type of tuple (Query,Weight,Scorer) I can
: easily implement new Scoring technique. Unfortunatly Lucene index shows that
: it stores only TF / Position vectors for each term within document.
: I am interested in investigating new scoring technique where I w
Indeed - you bring up interesting questions. You may want to take a look at
NUTCH first, however - I am not sure if they have done some of the
Google-like ranking you mention.
However - collaborative relevance enhancement, based on user feedback, would
be a nice Web-2.0-ish feature to bake into
Technique based on Relevance Feeback & other Parameters
Hello Great/smart guys
This is my first question for this group as I started working on
the Lucene last month.
Lucene provide the scoring of documents based on TF-IDF vector
analysis. Lucene also provides the Sco
of the first to test it!)
Another parameter is relevance feedback from the User.
Ranking should get affected by relevance feedback from the user.
Take a look at Term Vectors. Search the list. Read about them at
http://www.cnlp.org/apachecon2005 or in "Lucene In Action&quo
investigate
Another parameter is relevance feedback from
the User. Ranking should get affected by relevance feedback from the user.
Would someone interested in helping out or thinking
about the same problem.
user lets say 300. I can do that by only
extracting the first 300 hits (sorted by decreasing relevance by
default) and displaying those to the user.
If you are only talking about ordering the number of items that you
are going to show to the user, that seems to imply that the number
wil
e. After all they may search for "bolt"
maybe they want an ancillary product.
-Original Message-
From: Mufaddal Khumri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:06 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: get results by relevance, limit
" products, at least
you'll get some of these. After all they may search for "bolt"
maybe they want an ancillary product.
-Original Message-
From: Mufaddal Khumri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:06 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.o
Mufaddal Khumri wrote:
When I do a search for example on "batteries" i get 1200+ results. I
would like to show the user lets say 300. I can do that by only
extracting the first 300 hits (sorted by decreasing relevance by
default) and displaying those to the user.
If you are on
It sounds like this is a webapp.
I'd consider playing with HTML DOM a little bit - come up with a system where I
get top N matches by relevance, store them somewhere, and then just re-sort
them using users' criteria, without going back to the Lucene index.
For instance, you could
ll the primary pens and
pencils, which makes sense.
-Original Message-
From: Mufaddal Khumri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:02 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: get results by relevance, limiting results and then sort
the results by some criteri
to see.
I think I'm just curious why getting rid of some that could (in a new
sort) be of higher relevance is a good thing.
-Original Message-
From: Mufaddal Khumri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:33 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: g
to sort on the full document list, and then
return on the 300 top that you want the user to see.
I think I'm just curious why getting rid of some that could (in a new
sort) be of higher relevance is a good thing.
-Original Message-
From: Mufaddal Khumri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
